State v. Grant

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Grant

204 S.E.2d 700, 21 N.C. App. 431, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1825

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 1, 1974

DocketNo. 748SC341

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 S.E.2d 700 (State v. Grant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Grant, 204 S.E.2d 700, 21 N.C. App. 431, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1825 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

This case was before this court in July of 1973 when defendant appealed from the judgments imposed at his trial. In an opinion reported in 18 N.C. App. 722, 197 S.E. 2d 898 (1973), this court found no error in the trial. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. 284 N.C. 122, 199 S.E. 2d 661 (1973).

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its order denying the motion will not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion appears. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 131, page 53; State v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333 (1963); State v. Chambers, 14 N.C. App. 249, 188 S.E. 2d 54 (1972). A careful review of the record filed in this appeal, as well as the record filed in the former appeal, impels us to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Carson concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRITT, Judge.

This case was before this court in July of 1973 when defendant appealed from the judgments imposed at his trial. In an opinion reported in 18 N.C. App. 722, 197 S.E. 2d 898 (1973), this court found no error in the trial. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. 284 N.C. 122, 199 S.E. 2d 661 (1973).

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its order denying the motion will not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion appears. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 131, page 53; State v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333 (1963); State v. Chambers, 14 N.C. App. 249, 188 S.E. 2d 54 (1972). A careful review of the record filed in this appeal, as well as the record filed in the former appeal, impels us to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Hedrick and Carson concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.E.2d 700, 21 N.C. App. 431, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grant-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack